I'm here, I'm here.
OMGUS votes are necessary at this point in time.
It's not that you're co-operating. It's what you are saying. Don't misinterpret what has been said by others. This talk is what I don't like, and in my post I also mention that my vote could go towards Jack at this point for him starting this line of thinking. And if I think it`s rolefishing, that`s not exactly a good thing. Saying you`re co-operating for town and anyone casting a finger at your direction must be scummy themselves is illogical. Town suspects town. Town suspects scum. Scum `suspects` town. Scum `suspects` scum. Just because someone doesn`t like what you have posted doesn`t make them scummy.The Quintastic One wrote:So me purposefully volunteering for the town cop (Jack or not) means I'm scum...despite the fact that if they town cop were to take me up on that offer than I would be proven innocent, and no scum in their right mind would actively want to be investigated and outed on day 2 in the first place.
Which makes me believe that those who are pointing suspicions towards me and going so far as to even vote for me are scum trying to get a lynch so that that's one less cooperative townie to deal with and they can try to strike fear in anyone else who would dare to try and prove their innocence and screw up their late game hijinx.
Therefore
Vote: Strangercoug
FoS: Paltryexcuse
Call it rolefishing all you want. I'm fully willing for the town cop to investigate me. A proven innocent townie is a thousand times more useful than a bunch of townies that you can't trust to be telling the truth.
@Jack: You didn't specifically role-fish, per se, however, your initial question led to subsequent fishing due to the speculation your question brings. Basically, your question breeded roletalk. And if you didn't rolefish, how did you come across your information of the set-up? I am a bit afraid of the role speculation as already you seem to have a feel of multiple roles in this game and I thought talk on it was cut off.Jack wrote:What posts did I make that had the purpose of finding pro town roles to kill? That is what role fishing is. How do you feel that I am hiding behind Sir cyanide?
As for the set up "conclusion"--
Jack wrote:Oh well, probably not. But I wouldn't be overly afraid of speculation-->the point I'm making.
@Zang: Is it just the perceived cop claim that has you thinking Jack is scummy? Or is there something else to change your mind from Sir Cyanide being less of a detriment than Jack (the original reason you upgraded your FoS to a vote)?Zang wrote:I always thought that Jack was scum (look at my previous posts), I just did not want to risk the chance that he was cop. But now I'm willing to take that chance, for all we know there might not even be a cop.
@Coug: Found this on an ISO read. Why mention this at all? This just doesn't seem to serve a purpose.StrangerCoug wrote:What you mention here is true, but I have a scummy meta and the cop, if any, might not be able to get a good read on me.Jack wrote:Ok...follow up question to those who answered. If you are innocent, why would you want the cop to waste an investigation on you? Trying to prove you aren't scared makes sense for the mafia...
WHAT? Why? You've never mentioned you find Jack scummy at any point.The Quintastic One wrote:That my first initial response, you should be smart enough to look back and see my reasonings as to why I was convinced later on.
Unless of course you're encouraging me to believe you're no longer to be considered the cop, then you'd pretty much be the most scummy and worthy of my vote. To be honest, the fact that I still think you're a cop is pretty much your soul saving grace at this point.
Every player is going to say that they're confident that they are town. Why does suspecting you show scummy behaviour?The Quintastic One wrote:Yes, I understand now that the cop investigating scum would be alot more effective than clearing me as town. But still, if I am THIS confident that I am innocent, I find it very suspect that other people are still as confident as they are that I am scummy.
This has been bothering me for a while. Why do you believe TQO?Zang wrote:Tqo-I did believe your points and I don't know that Jack is scum, the only people that know who is scum is scum. And can you elaborate more on how I am being manipulated?
It seems as though Zang doesn't believe his own accusations of who is or isn't scum. He easily believes those he FOS's. You have to take into consideration what the people whom you suspect say because you might be wrong... however, to believe them with no reason for the change in thought? Scary stuff.SIR CYANIDE wrote:IMO this is a pretty silly reason, are you implying a scum link (he votes TQO to make it seem as if they are unconnected but then quickly unvotes because he doesn't feel comfortable/doesn't want to bus)?ConfidAnon wrote:TQO - You are getting more annoying by the post.
Going off of gut and how he quickly shifted to TQO, and then quickly shifted back off of TQO.
Vote: Zang
I never said your opinions can't change on people. I no longer find Jack to be the scummiest and removed my vote from him. However, 2 days after FOS'ing someone youZang wrote:My Suscpicouns change as do Many peoples, how is that scummy?
And
unvote
Why could only 2 of your 3 suspects be scum at that point? (TQO, Sir Cyanide, Jack)Zang wrote:I'm not voting because I have 3 suspects, I want to narrow it down farther before I vote, only 2 of my 3 suspects can be scum if that. I want to have more solid information before I vote.
And you answered:PaltryExcuse wrote:@Zang: Is it just the perceived cop claim that has you thinking Jack is scummy? Or is there something else to change your mind from Sir Cyanide being less of a detriment than Jack (the original reason you upgraded your FoS to a vote)?
What is the answer to the first question? As in, is it just the perceived cop claim that makes Jack scummy for you?Zang wrote:Paltryexcuse-I was going to unvote cyanide anyway, I originally voted for him because he was no use to the town whether he is or isn't mafia but he has disproven me of that so I was going to unvote him.
It just seems the more I focus on your posts, the more I don't like.Zang wrote:Well, it is possible that we have another killing role
You believed TQO's points after FOSing him. What was there to believe and why?Zang, Post 170 wrote:Paltryexcuse-I was going to unvote cyanide anyway, I originally voted for him because he was no use to the town whether he is or isn't mafia but he has disproven me of that so I was going to unvote him.
Tqo-I did believe your points and I don't know that Jack is scum, the only people that know who is scum is scum. And can you elaborate more on how I am being manipulated?
I say make a massive case against someone. You've kinda walked in like a replacement with a fresh look we haven't heard anything from... so make a massive case. But I'm with Jack in that fresh after reading the thread, you've gotta have some inkling of who to vote for, no?cruelty wrote:Goddamn, TQO you need a good slap.
I've read the thread and rather than making a massive case I'll just throw out a few thoughts.
- AGar needs to post more. He's made 9 posts, and only one could really be considered meaningful. Little concerning, he's capable as mafia.
- TQO you're truely playing horribly. If you're town, there was zero need to roleclaim, it just lines up another target for scum. Not only that, but you're not "obvtown", you're obvnewb, obvidiot, but not town. Not even close. That said, the crazy drunken path you're stumbling down is, irritatingly, leading to town, following a circuitous route of sheer incompetence, so I can't vote for you in good conscience right now. Pick your game up.
- Jack.. don't get the early claim. Don't really buy it either, but I'm not going to read into it right now. I tend to think that it's a dangerous claim for scum to make (in my experience cops are generally exposed through investigation claims, counter claims or through their deaths long before lylo) so I'm willing to let you sit on it for now.
- Zang you're horribly inconsistent. Need to re-read and engage with you a little because at the moment I'm looking in on proceedings.
I hate day 1. I never get a good read day 1 so I'm a little hesitant to vote right now, especially in light of the fact that I haven't actually engaged anyone yet due to V/LA.
What I would like from you all though, is directions to issues you feel I should comment on. What information do you want from me, given that I'm in sort of a unique position (no personal bias due to no head to heads yet)?
He calls him obv-newb and obv-idiot. Not newbtown. If anything, it sounds as though he suspects him. But without a vote or FoS it's kinda hard to tell.StrangerCoug wrote:Can you be a little more specific as to how you're getting a newbtown read on The Quintastic One?cruelty wrote:What I would like from you all though, is directions to issues you feel I should comment on. What information do you want from me, given that I'm in sort of a unique position (no personal bias due to no head to heads yet)?
I answered the question. I am the only one who has so far. Whether or not you disagree with me is a different issue.cruelty wrote:PaltryExcuse wrote:I think it's crazy to zoom in on one single event. Over time, the little things people say can be more telling at times than the larger debates.
So you're saying there isn't any one thing that's stuck out to you in the entire game? Not the Jack/Cyanide war, not TQO's random claim, nothing?
I'm not asking you to build a case around anything specific, but there absolutely has to be something that doesn't sit right with you, and I want to know what. Don't come at me spouting nonsense about the little things, that's completely and utterly irrelevant given what I want to know from you.
Why are you hesitant to answer me? What downside is there to answering the question?
I don't think I sidestepped it. I don't think there's a singular important event, and I described why I thought it was dangerous to focus on one and one alone.cruelty wrote:You didn't answer the question at all, you (quite neatly, to be fair) sidestepped it. I don't really like it when people do that. I think it's scummy. You're not going to convince me (or anyone else in the game, I sincerely hope) that there hasn't been a single moment yet which turned your head. Reading through your iso it seems like there definitely is, which in turn makes me wonder exactly why you're hesitant to talk about it. Regardless, your response has been noted.
I'm not overly concerned about the others thus far, although I will note that TBM did answer it, which invalidates your statement that you're alone in addressing the question.
Yes, it was me who accused you.cruelty wrote:This is parroting something someone else (Paltry? can't be bothered looking) said. It stuck out because it's related to me, but looking back through your post it's quite obvious that you're not really thinking here, you're just recycling arguments other people have made. It's all good and well to get behind someone else's case (if it's a good case), but the vast majority of your original content has been fairly blatant and illogical OMGUS.TQO wrote:If he has truly read through the entire thread like I just have, he would have MORE than enough material to vote for somebody.
Did you read the bolded parts?Zang wrote:TQO-your overview is informative but I do not see what the point of it was. Could you explain this? Was it really just to show your thoughts of what's been going on while rereading? If so why bother posting it (because it did just sound like a narrative of what's been happening throught the game)?
WEEEEEEEEEEEE! Answers please before a lynching!PaltryExcuse wrote:@cruelty: Still waiting for your answer to your own question and also what you thought was my 'singular moment' in this game.
Secondly:Yes, it was me who accused you.cruelty wrote:This is parroting something someone else (Paltry? can't be bothered looking) said. It stuck out because it's related to me, but looking back through your post it's quite obvious that you're not really thinking here, you're just recycling arguments other people have made. It's all good and well to get behind someone else's case (if it's a good case), but the vast majority of your original content has been fairly blatant and illogical OMGUS.TQO wrote:If he has truly read through the entire thread like I just have, he would have MORE than enough material to vote for somebody.
Question though, where did TQO get his suspicions of ConfidAnon from?
We're in no rush to lynch (Deadline is Feb 11th, 9 days from now). I say we wait for a more indepth response from you, no? And an answer from Vivi to the recent accusations.Fat_Tony wrote:Also, for those keeping score at home, I replaced in for CA. I must admit, your quick push of TBM to L-1 unnerved me, cruelty. Stagnation? Ok, I realise there are some circular arguments bouncing around, but hardly stagnation. I had just pushed TBM to L-2 myself. Not calling you out as scum, just passing along my observation.
Nonetheless, I'm fully behind a TBM lynch, just wasn't expecting such a quick response from Alf from Home and Away. TBM is also the ONLY player I will be happy to lynch without doing a more detailed readthrough and PBPA this weekend first. I have seen nothing but scummy behaviour from him. For info's sake, I don't have Coug down as his scumbuddy, and would probably view Vivi57 as the most likely scumpartner due to megalurktasticity.
Get your hammers out, people.
So who do you suspect and why?cruelty wrote:Well, L1 isn't a lynch.
I gotta come clean though, I'm fairly apathetic about the game right now and I would like for something to happen that grabs my interest. I'm not 100% behind the TBM lynch (I suspect mainly because I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to him, something I'll rectify tomorrow), but I'm willing to look a little scummy and jump on the wagon, unless there's a viable alternative (which I don't really expect there to be).
I'm looking for information out of you Buttonmen. The lack of new ideas (the bickering with TQO is just a re-hash of old arguments) is not inciting confidence at all. Give something, and help the town you claim to be on. At this point, Tony's PBPA is all I'm waiting for before I hammer.TheButtonmen wrote:Zhang is my 2nd scummiest read, after that I don't have any real scummy reads, AGar and Jack posts at times strike me as odd, but nothing really pops out.
Your first few posts just read the same thing over and over. Stop talking about the roles. I agree with the sentiment, but it's not until you're attacked that I feel you perk up with a better case on TQO.TheButtonmen wrote:What do you feel makes me scummy?
Yeah. Do I find TQO scummy nonetheless? Yes. As he and many others have said, he's new he's new he's new. He recovered nicely with his wall post, but really having the fact he's new crammed down my throat so often and so early, and the uncalled-for roleclaim, still irk me.TheButtonmen wrote:And do you belive TQO's story that when he was searching the wiki he never used the search bar?
A) That's a matter of opinion. Obviously you'd disagree. But until that point, it's seemTheButtonmen wrote:A) FalsePaltryExcuse wrote:
A) You didn't start building a case until you were attacked.
B) Your play reminds me of my own scum play.
C) You ignored a post and gave a weak defense.
D) You seem hesitant to name anyone outside of TQO & Zang as possible scum.
B) Okay? Not sure how to respond to that.
C) You say I ignored a post, which means you have a specfic one in mind?
D) You think its scummy that I only find two people scummy D1? That doesn't make a lick of sense.
And the fact that it was ignored at the time as well as your uber-tunneling makes it scummy and the case a good one.AGar wrote:Posts like these:PaltryExcuse wrote:@AGar: Why do you feel TheButtonMen has stifled conversation?
TheButtonmen wrote:Can we stop trying to figure out who the cop is?There's a few others that read as if he's trying to push people along and stifle people from talking, but that's just my personal opinion.TheButtonmen wrote:The Quintastic One
Let's not discuss sanities and try to get people to speculate on roles quite yet eh?
This is not analysis. This is a summary. This is why you should have been lynched instead.Zang wrote:First of all I would like to welcome fat_tony, nothing much else happened. But now I will do a case on tbm. This is tbm in ISO-
-argues with Jack about cop investigating town
-votes tqo with no reasoning
-questions jacks setup
-accuses tqo of sounding scummy everytime he posts
-calls tqo "super new"
-Says that tqo has flawed logic
-tells Jack to vote tqo
-accuses tqo of exajerrating
-criticizes tqo for claiming a power role
-says that everytime tqo is questioned he says how obvtown he Is
-Says that tqo had bad logic (again)
-questions tqo
-says that I am scum with logic that I do not understand
-Calls tqo a liar
-accuses tqo of changing his story
-explains his logic for why he said I was scummy
-admits that he was going for the easy lynch (tqo)
-once again he sais that tqo has changed his story and lied multiple times
-criticizes Jack
-once again calls tqo a liar
-misspells my name
-questions paltry
-defends himself against paltry
-sais that cruelty hates day one
he is obssesed with lynching tqo and is desserving of my vote so
vote:thebuttonmen
and I think that is hammer so goodbye
It wasn't distancing. I still look back and find you scummy. You're just not top of the list and I would've much rather have lynched the person who I am currently voting for.PaltryExcuse wrote:You're not my strongest scum read (that's still Zang), but you're definitely up there.
That's actually just my playstyle. Town/Scum/PR.Vivi57 wrote:After that, paltry just asked a ton of questions to everyone in the game. It feels like he's the cop fishing for information on who he should investigate. He also doesn't really commit to much or say much, just asks a bunch of questions.